Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Hot on Facebook
Man Tries to Order Priciest Starbucks Drink Ever Total cost: $23.60 »

Supreme Court Sidesteps Major Voting-Rights Ruling

By the Associated Press

Posted Jun 22, 2009 11:04 AM CDT
Email

(AP) – The Supreme Court ruled narrowly today in a challenge to the Voting Rights Act, exempting a small Texas district from a key provision of the law, but side-stepping the larger constitutional issue. The act requires Southern areas with a history of discrimination to get advance federal approval before changing election procedures. The larger issue of whether the law is still necessary, “is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

In other Supreme Court news:

  • The court ruled 6-3 that parents who place their special-education students in private schools can seek public reimbursement.
  • In another 6-3 ruling, the court upheld a permit to dump gold-mine waste in an Alaska lake, saying it had been improperly blocked on environmental grounds.
  • The court declined to revive Valerie Plame's lawsuit over her leaked identity.

Members of the Supreme Court await the arrival of President Barack Obama prior to his address to a joint session of Congress, Feb. 24, 2009.
Members of the Supreme Court await the arrival of President Barack Obama prior to his address to a joint session of Congress, Feb. 24, 2009.   (AP Photo)
In this March 5, 2009, file photo, the Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington.
In this March 5, 2009, file photo, the Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington.   (AP Photo)
In this April 30, 2008, file photo, Chief Justice John Roberts speaks at the University of Kansas in Lawrence.
In this April 30, 2008, file photo, Chief Justice John Roberts speaks at the University of Kansas in Lawrence.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 7 comments
AnnieChrist
Jun 23, 2009 12:29 PM CDT
Slavery was not 'thought' to be constitutional, it WAS constitutional, up until the 13th Amendment made it unconstitutional. Likewise, the death penalty has ben held not to violate the constitutional stricture regarding 'cruel and unusual punishment. That said, your point is well taken, and I stand corrected. The Jim Crow laws of 'separate but equal' were held to be constitutional for a century,but consequently thrown out with Brown v Board. thomas is still an idiot though.
psycada
Jun 22, 2009 9:45 AM CDT
Slavery is still done today, jus not here (outright at least) You sure about your last statement?
RobN
Jun 22, 2009 8:26 AM CDT
"How can a law be constitutional for 45 years, then suddenly become unconstitutional?" This happens all the time. The law evolves. Views change. Look at the death penalty. It's constitutionality is constantly being fought. Slavery was thought to be constitutional; now it's not. Would you have kept it under the theory that what was once constitutional should always be seen as constitutional?

Copyright 2012 Newser, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. AP contributed to this report.


Court refuses counterfeiting case
Associated Press

Court to review sex offender law
Reuters

 
Valerie Plame • Alaska • lawsuit • Voting Rights Act • US Supreme Court • civil rights movement • special education

More Newser Stories

High Court to Hear Challenge to Voting Rights Act

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Case Bound for Supreme Court

Supreme Court Axes Texas Electoral Map

Alaska Paying to Help Defend Palin in Lawsuit

Winklevoss Twins Appeal to Supreme Court
NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   Betty Confidential   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Fark   |   Timelines   |   The Frisky   |   Geek Sugar   |   NewsOne